Originally posted by googlefudgeYou don’t understand: by acting as if whatever you don’t believe exists doesn’t really exist, or by refusing to believe that you believe what you don’t believe, or at least by not acting as if you believe whatever you don’t believe exists exists - you have deliberately rejected what you insist on not thinking exists as if it actually existed, or at least that you think so, whether you think so or not, or even whether or not you think about it at all.
It doesn't get any less wrong with repetition.
Atheism is about not having a belief in any gods.
The fact that one god is more important to you has no bearing on me or my beliefs.
You are too self absorbed and self centred to see this however.
It's a common fault that people believe that things that are important to them are
important to everyone else too.
And so, there’s no excuse, in any case, for not believing in what you happen to think there is nothing of. Because by thinking that there’s nothing of it, you are really saying that you don’t want it even if it was, whether it is or it isn’t, whatever “it” is, which, as you should now be able to see, really doesn’t matter.
But if you can just learn to accept isn’t as if it is, then you can hardly go wrong. I, for example, have accommodated myself quite well to the non-existing existence of Scrubles, without knowing what the conditions might be for a Scruble to actually have existing existence - or even what a Scruble might be.
In other words, I have learned to believe in Scrubles whether they are or they aren’t. It takes practice, of course. But if it keeps me out of trouble with Scrubles, I suspect it’s worth it. Don’t you?
__________________________________
EDIT: In sum, just stop not believing in what you believe is not, whether or not you believe it. 😉
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipWell, I don't believe the same things as you. I also have no convincing reason to believe your implicit and explicit claims that God has revealed Himself to you.
That's what I always understood.
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.
I just echo those claims mostly by quotation.
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is your ignorance..............that you do not deliberate between Thor or Allah or Vishnu.
Well done.
You are a pretty perfect case study on how irrational faith based thinking
harms people and why it is bad.
[quote]Logic is merely an excuse, a tool for disbelief, for people like you to not
accept the existence of the being who created every species on earth, and
whom we are subjugate to. (I'm guessing this is really the part that ...[text shortened]... y being the truth.
If your arguments don't stand up to logic then they just don't stand up.
It is evidence that you have not studied religion.
If you have not studied religion how would you know the truth of God or Gods.
You cannot tell me the difference between true religion and false religion and this is evidence of your ignorance.
A person must study chemistry to understand differences between chemicals and their reactions.
You accept evolution without evidence of intermediary links between each species.
You accept big bang and the formation of the planets without evidence of such events.
The Science of Origins is a collection of stories coming from theories.
The stories change when the theories change.
Honest persons observe intelligent design everywhere all of the time and this is the first step in understanding that God exists.
Then it takes devotion and service to become close to the Lord and develop the relationship.
You do not know how your heart is beating in your chest for 90 years.
There are almost 7 billion people on earth and their hearts are all beating and pumping trillions of litres of blood and you do not marvel at this.
Can science make a machine that runs for 90 years just by throwing scraps of food and water into it?
A mans brain can calculate faster than a computer to the 200th decimal place.
By mixing a little bit of male goo with a little bit of female goo a human being is created in 9 months.
Can science make a little ant?
The evidence is all around you and you cover your eyes and say I have no evidence.
This is dishonest.
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by DasaYou are using the word "dishonest" incorrectly, Dasa.
That is your ignorance..............that you do not deliberate between Thor or Allah or Vishnu.
It is evidence that you have not studied religion.
If you have not studied religion how would you know the truth of God or Gods.
You cannot tell me the difference between true religion and false religion and this is evidence of your ignorance.
A person mu ...[text shortened]... ence is all around you and you cover your eyes and say I have no evidence.
This is dishonest.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMF
Well, I don't believe the same things as you. I also have no convincing reason to believe your implicit and explicit claims that God has revealed Himself to you.
Well, I don't believe the same things as you. I also have no convincing reason to believe your implicit and explicit claims that God has revealed Himself to you.
Yes, you wrote that before. And I respond in the same way.
I do not believe that God has not revealed something of His existence to you - if not from special revelation from the Bible then by natural revelation through the creation.
I think God has revealed something of His existence to you just as much as anyone else. When Paul says " ... so that they would be without excuse" (Rom. 1:20) it applies to all people.
For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without excuse ..." (Rom. 1:20)
Just like everybody else, it has been clearly revealed to you that whoever created the universe has "eternal power and divine characteristics".
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipI do not subscribe to the supposed "special revelation from the Bible" that you subscribe to. And whatever "natural revelation through the creation" there is or may be does not substantiate the explicit, dogmatic claims you make about Christ.
I do not believe that God has not revealed something of His existence to you - if not from special revelation from the Bible then by natural revelation through the creation.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFI didn't say natural revelation substantiates dogmatic claims about Christ.
I do not subscribe to the supposed "special revelation from the Bible" that you subscribe to. And whatever "natural revelation through the creation" there is or may be does not substantiate the explicit, dogmatic claims you make about Christ.
I simply said that natural revelation through creation leaves all men without excuse not to believe that "To Whom It May Concern" (so to speak) has eternal power and divine characteristics.
Just like everybody else, it has been clearly revealed to you that whoever created the universe has "eternal power and divine characteristics".
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipWhether or not you happen to think I have an "excuse" for not believing the same things as you is irrelevant to me. I told you I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to you and you immediately cited "natural revelation through the creation" and then moved on to quoting from your preferred religious literature. I do not subscribe to your claims about "eternal power and divine characteristics".
I didn't say natural revelation substantiates dogmatic claims about Christ.
I simply said that natural revelation through creation leaves all men without excuse not to believe that [b] "To Whom It May Concern" (so to speak) has eternal power and divine characteristics.[/b]
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipThen why have you been so insistent on phrasing it another way?
That's what I always understood.
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ. I just echo those claims mostly by quotation.
This I agree to, although in this thread, your quotation didn't say what you claimed it said.
I reject your claims about Christ.
I reject the Bibles claims about Christ.
I do not reject a nonexistent pigeons delivery, and I do not reject the promises of a nonexistent God.
Why can't you see the distinction? Why do you not want to see the distinction? Does it have some effect on your religious beliefs, if I do not reject God?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMF
Whether or not you happen to think I have an "excuse" for not believing the same things as you is irrelevant to me. I told you I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to you and you immediately cited "natural revelation through the creation" and then moved on to quoting from your preferred religious literature. I do not subscribe to your claims about "eternal power and divine characteristics".
Whether or not you happen to think I have an "excuse" for not believing the same things as you is irrelevant to me. I told you I have no reason to believe God has revealed Himself to you and you immediately cited "natural revelation through the creation" and then moved on to quoting from your preferred religious literature. I do not subscribe to your claims about "eternal power and divine characteristics".
Tell me why again I should care about what you do and do not subscribe to?
Atheism explicitly and implicitly is a rejection of Christ (among other things). That was my point which I suppose we will continue to be at odds about.
Sometimes I get the feeling that when you say you do not believe that God has revealed anything to me, you are goading me into a strenuous self defense. Is it me or do I detect that you are hoping that I will launch into a vigorous self defense - "What do you mean God has not revealed anything to me?"
God first revealed ME to me. Ugh !! I saw that I was a sinner good for nothing except condemnation. Probably that was the first revelation. I had to go down before I could ascend.
I do not take this accusation (that God has revealed nothing to me) in so much the personal way, as a personal affront. It is obvious that you do not think God has revealed anything to someone who maintains that "Jesus is Lord" .
You've made this point about three times. Isn't it obvious that you think no revelation of Christ from God has come to me?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
Then why have you been so insistent on phrasing it another way?
[b]It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ. I just echo those claims mostly by quotation.
This I agree to, although in this thread, your quotation didn't say what you claimed it said.
I reject your claims about Christ.
I reject the Bibles clai ...[text shortened]... see the distinction? Does it have some effect on your religious beliefs, if I do not reject God?[/b]
Then why have you been so insistent on phrasing it another way?
I do not feel I am being insistent on anything except what "Atheism" classically and commonly is understood to mean.
I think new atheists are insistent of updating the definition with a revision.
sonship:
I just echo those claims mostly by quotation.
This I agree to, although in this thread, your quotation didn't say what you claimed it said.
Not sure what this means.
I reject your claims about Christ.
I reject the Bibles claims about Christ.
I do not reject a nonexistent pigeons delivery, and I do not reject the promises of a nonexistent God.
Yes you do I think.
You reject them as false promises.
Why can't you see the distinction? Why do you not want to see the distinction? Does it have some effect on your religious beliefs, if I do not reject God?
Two questions there:
1.) I see no substantial distinction. I see an attempt to update the definition of Atheism to reinforce its denial of God (among other things).
2.) Your rejection of the Bible's claims or your insistence that you have some kind of neutral yet negative reaction to them makes no difference to my faith and experience of God.
Now I am going to discuss some things with Grampy Bobby which pretty much have nothing to do with our exchanges here. So if I do, don't think of them as any kind of continuation of this disagreement I have with you, FMF and googlefudge.
I want to talk to Grampy Bobby about something, I think, which is pretty much another subject.
I am "running away" now, as you say. Or I am flying away now.
Sorry if the point does not enthrall me indefinitely.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Jun 14
Grampy, I have been enjoying belief and unbelief in Christ in John chapters 5 and 6.
Comment briefly on a few passages please.
Notice Jesus said that those who come to Him have been given TO Him by His Father -
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and him who comes to Me I shall by no means cast out." (John 6:37)
It seems here the Father must initiate the giving of believers TO the Son.
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up in the last day." (v.39)
Here again - those given to the Son by the Father to be resurrected on the last day.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up in the last day." (v.44)
This is truly marvelous. Yet it is mysterious too. God the Father must draw the believers in the Son - " the Father who sent Me draws him ..."
'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." (v.45)
These passages are all in John 6. Man must hear from the Father, learn of the Father, be drawn by the Father to come to believe into Christ.
Fellowship please.
Then Jesus says no one has seen the Father.
"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father." (v.46)
This of course agrees with John's prologue -
"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. " (John 1:18)
And it agrees with another place Jesus said no one has seen the Father.
"And the Father who sent Me, He has testified concerning Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor have you seen His form, And you do not have His word abiding in you, for Him whom He sent, this One you do not believe." (5:37,38)
Can you see the operation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit bringing men and women to Christ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by vistesdI fully endorse this product or service 😉
You don’t understand: by acting as if whatever you don’t believe exists doesn’t really exist, or by refusing to believe that you believe what you don’t believe, or at least by not acting as if you believe whatever you don’t believe exists exists - you have deliberately rejected what you insist on not thinking exists as if it actually existed, or at least th ...[text shortened]... In sum, just stop not believing in what you believe is not, whether or not you believe it. 😉